Let me start by separating the technical issue (ie: am I correct in describing a certain thing I have done as self-refuting, from the debate over you're contention that this thing I have done is indicative of hypocrisy.

To the latter: do you find it hypocritical if I yell "EVERYBODY STOP TALKING", or if I fight a "war to end all wars", or, upon hearing a certain Cartesian argument happen to suppose for, say, 24 hours that I do not Exist? Whatever the final result of our conversation about the technical definition of self-refutation is, all of the above share the same property as my decision to post about my opinion that I should not post on the site while I am not training. Are the examples above really what you mean by "hypocrisy", and are they really in a separate category from what I have said and done that prompts you to name me as such? If so, please explain.

More to the point, I said that I should not post actively. Me. Actively. Granted, my activity on this thread is in violation of "NOT ACTIVELY", but you contend that I have attempted to apply this to others, yet refuse to provide evidence that I ever said such a thing, or even contended that I had knowledge that any other person was not training. It is a simple matter to go back and find the offending material, is it not?

Note that neither of Mackie's examples involve propositions spoken or written that deal with any concept of truth (or falsity), but are merely false by consequence of (pragmatic) self-refutation. Now, what is the substantive difference between writing "I am not writing" and writing "I should not be writing" Is it your point that the latter is expressing a point of preference, and not made a claim regarding a fact of the world? This is an extremely fine point to be making anything other than a clarifying comment about.

If I had posted "Non-trainers like me do not post" instead of "Non-trainers like me should not post" then we would not be having this discussion, and I would have been correct in applying the term "self-refuting" to my prior posting.

Do you think anyone here was tuned in enough to the fine point of this distinction to be affected in any way by misapplying "self-refuting" in a way that is undetectable by anyone who is not a professional philosopher? Because you have called me a hypocrite and accused me of acting unfairly to others on the basis of this very fine epistemic point.

If I write "Someone posts about all posters that do not post about themselves" on this forum (I just did), will you say merely that paradox is in play, by malign me if I attempt to express a belief that no one should post so?

What you have done is extremely hairy and unfair, and it's resting on your appeal to your own credentials and other posters lack of interest in following technical points in philosophy.

Unfortunately there are people outside your profession who are quite capable and interested enough to follow what you are saying, and to see the problem with how you tried to use it.

I await your reply.

Look. The Mackie cases (of pragmatic self-refutation) are a third, attenuated kind of self refutation, but what you did still isn't at all an instance of this. On the off chance that this isn't just another piece of bogus, sophistical crap, I'll explain why, again.

The Mackie cases are cases where the claim being made denies that what IS being done is being done, not where there is merely a claim that one SHOULDN'T do what is being done. There is no contradiction in doing what one morally condemns, merely bad faith and hypocrisy. It is an exhibition of a corrupt character not an intellectual puzzle let alone a paradox or a contradiction. I suspect you understand this. If you don't, I suspect others here do, and I'm not sure what else I can say to force you to see the point.

This has nothing to do with my credentials, it has everything to do with your desire to rationalize your bad conduct, your endless failure to live up to your own repeatedly announced principles, and your attempt to weasel out of responsibility for doing so by perverting language (posting hundreds of times over several weeks is actively posting, Mr. Phillips) and reason. Sorry, but those are the facts.

By the way, threats to shoot people, even with emoticons added, then retracted by adding "no really" aren't amusing, at least to me. Please keep in mind that that is recorded on the forum here.

What you have done is extremely hairy and unfair, and it's resting on your appeal to your own credentials and other posters lack of interest in following technical points in philosophy. I doubt more than one or two people following this care to understand the distinction you have made, and I am sure that they are not among the posters "agreeing" with you on this.

Fortunately there are people outside your profession who are quite capable and interested enough to follow what you are saying, and to see the problem with how you tried to use it.

Let me put the point even more clearly. Other posters have been calling you on your hypocrisy for days now. *You* have responded by raising the red herring claiming that you aren't hypocritical, rather you are engaged in some kind of philosophically elevated act of "self-refutation." All I've done is to deflate that piece of puffery. Everyone here knows what hypocrisy is, and that it has been hypocritical of you to condemn posting by non-trainers while posting hundreds of times over the past few weeks. Admit it, say you're sorry to the people you tried to bully about it, stop being a douche about who posts what, and move on.

Look. The Mackie cases (of pragmatic self-refutation) are a third, attenuated kind of self refutation, but what you did still isn't at all an instance of this. On the off chance that this isn't just another piece of bogus, sophistical crap, I'll explain why, again.

The Mackie cases are cases where the claim being made denies that what IS being done is being done, not where there is merely a claim that one SHOULDN'T do what is being done. There is no contradiction in doing what one morally condemns, merely bad faith and hypocrisy. It is an exhibition of a corrupt character not an intellectual puzzle let alone a paradox or a contradiction. I suspect you understand this. If you don't, I suspect others here do, and I'm not sure what else I can say to force you to see the point.

This has nothing to do with my credentials, it has everything to do with your desire to rationalize your bad conduct, your endless failure to live up to your own repeatedly announced principles, and your attempt to weasel out of responsibility for doing so by perverting language (posting hundreds of times over several weeks is actively posting, Mr. Phillips) and reason. Sorry, but those are the facts.

By the way, threats to shoot people, even with emoticons added, then retracted by adding "no really" aren't amusing, at least to me. Please keep in mind that that is recorded on the forum here.

OK, first of all I want to be very clear that I am not threatening to shoot you. Not at all. I was merely trying to be funny, as I was with "NAGA NO KATANA" etc. I can see that my sense of humor is causing real problems, and so I'm not making any more jokes.

If you really think I am being "corrupt" by saying "Everyone should stop talking" then I don't know what to tell you. I believe what I believe, and part of that is this is a good thing

And that a person should train first, post about it second, and then noodle about on the site doing whatever they like. When it gets inverted, the person suffers; when the majority inverts it, the site can't do it's job.

Training is important and posting is not. Let me leave it there.

Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie